Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1018 (HP)

Surinder Paul Vij v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-12-20

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral) By filing the present petition, the petitioner has sought the writ of mandamus to release the due and admissible pensionary benefits. 2. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition, can be stated thus. The respondent-State framed a Corporate Sector Pension Scheme, which was notified on 29.10.1999. It provided for pension to the Corporate Sector Employees from the employer’s contribution to the provident fund. By virtue of Clause 2 (2) thereof all employees of the HP Corporate Sector were required to opt in writing in the prescribed form, within a period of 30 days from the date of notification of the said scheme as to whether they would like to be governed by this scheme or by the existing statutory provisions. In case an employee did not exercise his option within the stipulated period, it was to be treated as deemed exercise of option under the existing pension scheme. (ii) The Scheme aforesaid was repealed vide notification dated 2.12.2004 and a new notification provided that all those who retired between 1.4.1999 to 2.12.2004 shall continue to be governed by the 1999 notification. It is also provided that the respective Corporations/Boards shall be the sanctioning/disbursing authorities for such retirees and their employer share of C.P.F. including the interest thereon shall be transferred to respective Corporations/Boards and they shall form a pension fund. Whereas, the other employees continued to be governed under the provisions which were already applicable to them as on 31.3.1999. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner joined his service in the Industrial Department in August 1964 and worked till September, 1973 and thereafter in the H.P. State Handicrafts Board till his retirement on 31.05.2011 (Annexure P-5). Thus, he served approximately for 26 years and eight months with the second respondent and for about 10 years and one month in the State Government. 4. It is submitted that the Pension Scheme aforesaid though notified, but was not implemented by the respondents. Therefore, some of the employees sought its implementation through the process of the Court. Thus, he served approximately for 26 years and eight months with the second respondent and for about 10 years and one month in the State Government. 4. It is submitted that the Pension Scheme aforesaid though notified, but was not implemented by the respondents. Therefore, some of the employees sought its implementation through the process of the Court. This Court in CWP-T No. 2530 of 2008, R.K. Soni versus State of HP and others, in its concluding para of the order/judgment directed the respondent-Department for its implementation, which reads as under: “Consequently, the Principal Secretary (Finance) is directed to take remedial measures to ensure that the notifications dated 29th October, 1999 and 2nd December, 2004 are implemented qua the employees who have retired on 1st April, 1999 to 2nd December, 2004 including the petitioner. The non- availability of funds should not come in the way of Corporations/Boards owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits. The Principal Secretary (Finance) is directed to file the supplementary affidavit on or before the next date of hearing.” 5. As already stated above, the petitioner retired from the Handloom Corporation as a Designer on 31.5.2011, but the pension was not allowed to him despite the notice served upon the respondents, whereas the second respondent vide its reply has resisted and contested the claim of the petitioner. The first respondent had adopted the reply of the second respondent. According to respondent No. 2, they had no Pension Scheme for its employees, whereas the petitioner was getting Family Pension from the Regional Provident Fund, Shimla. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot be granted double benefits, but however, his case is covered within the Scheme referred above. Therefore, once the Pensionary Scheme is held to be applicable to the petitioner, he cannot be denied the benefits there under. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot be granted double benefits, but however, his case is covered within the Scheme referred above. Therefore, once the Pensionary Scheme is held to be applicable to the petitioner, he cannot be denied the benefits there under. 6. In view of the above, I find that the petitioner who had completed the requisite qualifying service and had served the State Government and subsequently the Board, as stated above, is entitled for the benefit of the Pension Scheme in view of the various judgments passed by this Court in CWP-T No. 2530/2008, R.K. Soni versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 06.03.2009, CWP (T) No. 6604 of 2008, B.S. Himalvi versus HPTDC, decided on 16.11.2010 & CWP No. 7022/2010, R.K. Sharma versus State of H.P. & another, decided on 14.10.2011, which were upheld in LPA No. 724/2011, decided on 03.05.2012 and LPA No. 346/2011, H.P. State Forest Development Corporation versus Bimla Sood & others, decided on 24.05.2012. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to refund the entire benefits received by him under the EPF Scheme on his retirement, within a period of one month from today and thereafter, the case of the petitioner shall be processed by the respondents and appropriate action without discriminating him will be taken within two months from the date of refund, for the release of his due and admissible pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits. 8. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.